Quote:
Originally posted by Theilmann@May 24th, 2004 - 3:21 am
No, there was no brother. If the law of succession hadn't been changed with the change to the constitution in 1953. Prince Ingolf (now Count Ingolf of Rosenborg) who was the oldest son of King Frederik IX's younger brother Prince Knud would have become King. (Well first Prince Knud would have become King, but you get the drift  )
|
The thing I was asking was why the law was changed. According to my aunt, it wasn't simply changed because the king didn't have sons, it was changed because the king didn't have sons AND the heir at the time (or his son) was considered unsuitable for some reason (my aunt said something about a disability). Which suggests that if Prince Knud and his son had been considered suitable heirs, the law wouldn't have been changed and the succession would have gone to him.
If there's that strong a preference for a male heir, I was wondering if the changed law only applies if the next male heir doesn't measure up somehow (as seemed to be the case in 1953) or if it applies generally.